U.S. Rep. Steve Stivers from Columbus is pushing for production of pennies and nickels to be switched from the existing metal combinations to a makeup that is mostly steel.

The House Committee on Financial Services held a hearing this week tackling the topic in advance of a U.S. Mint report on alternative materials for Americans' money.

“In these times of fiscal strain, we can save millions of dollars,” Stivers said.

Good news for Stivers and interested observers, such as Columbus-based Worthington Industries Inc., was that the steel discussion was well-received by the panel. Executives from Worthington Industries (NYSE:WOR) didn’t testify, but the company has a vested interest in the topic because it is the supplier of steel for coins produced by the Royal Canadian Mint. That institution is being looked to as a model after switching to steel in 2000.

Beverley Lepine, Royal Canadian Mint chief operating officer, said the Mint’s multi-ply steel process produces the most economical and durable coins on the market. It produces coins not only for Canada, but makes more than 70 other denominations for 30 countries.

The result? The mint’s profit in the past five years has exceeded its net income in the previous 25. It generated a $43 million (Canadian) on $3.2 billion in revenue in 2011. Stivers cited one study that projected the U.S. could save $182 million to $207 million a year by making a switch to coins made mostly from steel. The debate has been spurred by the fact that since 2006, the cost of producing pennies and nickels has outstripped the coins’ face value.

Click on the slideshow to see how much it costs to make U.S. coins.

The U.S. Mint produced 4.3 billion pennies last year and 914 million nickels, Stivers said. That accounted for the bulk of the 7.4 billion coins produced in 2011. Richard Peterson, deputy director of the U.S. Mint, said 9.1 billion coins are expected to be made in 2012.

Metal is 47 percent of the cost in making a penny, Peterson said. Production is 35 percent of costs with the rest linked to general and administrative expense. Those overhead costs were questioned by some, but Peterson said the Mint has been working to cut expenses.

He also gave some insights into the Mint’s research on alternative materials, the first time the group has tackled the subject since 1965. The U.S. Mint has spent the last two years researching and developing alternative materials, including establishing a testing lab in its Philadelphia facility. It is wrapping a report to be released in December on its findings. Peterson said 29 different compositions have been tested for a variety of attributes, including hardness, corrosion, electronic signature, cost and material availability.

“There are several promising alternatives,” he said, citing aluminum, steel and zinc as the most likely materials.

Canada’s process is patented and would need to be licensed to use, something Lepine said the Mint would be open to considering.

“We’d need a supply chain,” Peterson said. “The Mint does not have that capacity internally.”

Canada has its own production facility in Winnipeg and it also licenses work to Jarden Zinc Products LLC in Tennessee, both of which are supplied by Worthington Industries.

The committee also tackled the possibility of replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin, but that discussion was much more contentious.